TES installed on Virtual instead of Physical as a source of latency

[WayneCole]

                   Dear Forum members, does anyone here have Tidal 6.1.0 installed on physical servers instead of virtual? I have had latency / poor response times on my Prod environment after we initially built our Tidal environment. I know that Cisco says that Tidal can run in a virtual environment, but as for a side my side comparison,  since I wish to build a case for a constructive argument to have our Production Tidal environment moved to a physical server. My reason being, is for the explosive growth phase we are in and I think it would be better to have our main bread and butter Prod on a physcial server. I known that Cisco Best Practices say a Physical is best, but "you can" install it on virtuals. My main concern as the Sys Admin is to increase performance in light of my increased load. Please let me know if this is possible and respond to my request here in the Forum.

[rreadenour]

Wayne, When we first installed our 6.1 environment on virtuals, it was miserably slow. I looked into some of the optimization options and found that if you externalize the Client Manager database it would speed up the system.  We did that, moved from the built-in Derby database to a SQL db on a different server and the performance increase was definitely noticeable.  You may have done that already, but if you haven't it's worth the small amount of effort.

[fgannon01]

Wayne,

We are seeing the same problems you were seeing at the beginning of the year.  We upgraded from 6.1.0.483 to 6.1.0.533 in the hope of seeing some kind of inprovement.  It is still slow, and if we have more than 7 or 8 users log into it, the system slows to a crawl.   At Cisco's suggestion, we opted to move the Admiral & TESCache DBs to dedicated VM servers (originally they were installed on the Master/Client Manager VM servers).  We are also using High Availability (HA) on our Admiral/TESCache DB's.  After discussions with Cisco, it was determined that Cisco does not support HA for TESCache.  We tested breaking HA for the TESCache in DEV, and it appeared that performance has increased some.... but not great.  Have you been able to resolve your latency issue, and if so, what was done to correct it?

ANY info would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Fred Gannon

fgannon@west.com